April 10, 2007

Does Violence Have to Be Taught?

By Selwyn Duke

It seems that the more we come to believe that “Violence has to
be taught,” the more our children learn to be violent. It’s a strange,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau-like fantasy, this fancy that a child sports a
halo until some neanderthal adult knocks it off with a five-finger
attention-getter. “Don’t you dare spank your kids!” say those schooled
in the fictions of sickology, “It’ll teach them to be violent.” I
wonder, does crying in their presence teach them how to bawl, too?

I would ask if the people who espouse this belief have ever had
any experience with babies, since the latter get angry quite often and,
when they do, will sometimes instinctively slap the object of their
displeasure. Oh, their strikes aren’t delivered with the accuracy and
power of a George Foreman right hand, but in the baby world they embody
true violent intent.

The idea that violence has to be taught appeals to many and is
parroted by them mainly because it serves to demonize corporal
punishment, something you only eschew if you’re taught to do so. It’s
not something they think deeply about; rather, it’s a knee jerk
reaction, an idea that can make those whose lips it passes feel like
desert mystics rendering a sage pronouncement. It’s nothing more than
philoso-babble.

It’s also interesting that those who embrace this fiction most
fervently usually subscribe to the theory of evolution with the same
formulaic devotion. Now, I’m not presently chiming in on the
origin-of-life debate, but it occurs to me that, when viewed through
the prism of evolutionary principles, nothing seems more preposterous
than asserting that violence has to be taught. After all, the principle
of survival of the fittest dictates that traits within certain
individuals that maximize chances of survival will become prevalent in
their species over time. And being able to use violence effectively
allows you to defend against and subdue foes, both human and beast,
thereby increasing survivability.

Speaking of beasts, hewing to evolutionary doctrine, many of
the same people would say that man is merely another animal, a highly
evolved one, of course, but an animal nonetheless. Yet, although the
natural world is rampant with natural violence, they seem to believe
that somehow, some way it’s unnatural for the human animal to follow
this natural course. And natural it is, as most every creature – be it
an insect, fish, bird or land mammal – will resort to violence when
feeling angry or threatened. Why, even if we just look at the path
beaten by man, we’ll see that it has been trod far more by the warrior
than the wordsmith. Violence has ever punctuated human affairs, and
genes were always more likely to be passed on by the militaristic than
the monastic.

Thus, an intelligent secular analysis of the matter would
inform that a propensity toward violence is most likely woven into our
genes. (As an aside, it’s ironic that the set claiming that violence
must be learned will also strenuously insist that homosexuality is
innate. Ever think that maybe, just perhaps, their pronouncements are
based more on rhetoric than research?)

Of course, although a Christian analysis would first and
foremost frame the issue in a religious light, the conclusion would
essentially be the same. To wit: We are born bearing the stain of
Original Sin and thus struggle against all manner and form of sinful
inclinations, not the least of which is, you guessed it, that
propensity toward violence.

So, as far as the problem of violence goes, secularists and
Christians should agree that it’s part of our nature; the only argument
should be whether that nature is basic or fallen.

Speaking of Original Sin, another problem is that of first
cause. If man is peaceful by nature, how is it that violence first
entered his world? No one could have first learned it without someone
to first teach it, but no one could first teach it without having first
learned it. So it follows that, in the least, it certainly wasn’t
contrary to some people’s nature.

The truth is that once you dispense with the tie-dyed
tee-shirt, flowers-in-the-hair mentality and ponder how our ancestors
stained battlefields red with ritualistic frequency, you realize one
needn’t be a cynic to believe that man doesn’t have to be taught to be
a barbarian.

He must be taught how not to be one.

Don’t misunderstand me, I realize that a poor upbringing can
cultivate vice just as a good one can virtue, and the mean streets can
breed the most violent of men. But a thing can only be cultivated if
it’s already present, and we’re all born with both dark and light
angels residing in the recesses of our hearts. The only difference is
that the dark one is far more seductive.

Then there is the fact that many of us view punitive or
aggressive physical contact in a very simplistic fashion. This is the
handiwork of those who, in the name of an obsession (again, eliminating
corporal punishment), would blind others to nuance as they lump good in
with bad in the same damnable category. The idea that all such physical
contact is “violence” – a term bearing a decidedly negative connotation
– is no different from branding all commentary about group differences
“racism,” “sexism” or bigotry. Those who do this are the epitome of
provincialism, individuals who wear ideological blinders and preclude a
deepening of our understanding by stifling debate.

As to the definition of violence, here’s one from Dictionary.com:

“1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.”

Thus, if physical contact is not directed toward the purpose of violating, damaging or abusing, it’s not violence.

Without a doubt, not all aggressive physical contact is created
equal, and this fact must be understood when evaluating it. A failure
to do so leads to many misconceptions, such as the painting of all
spanking as violence – and, therefore, abuse – and of all violence in
movies as equal. But this is no different from labeling all yelling
“emotional abuse”; you can also yell to warn someone away from a hot
pan or against taking another step lest he fall into some hidden
danger.

What is usually overlooked is the morality behind the physical
contact. In a movie, for instance, a truly noble hero using measured
violent action to defend the innocent is far different from a morally
ambiguous portrayal wherein ignoble characters are exalted as they use
violence to enrich themselves or achieve perverse pleasure. Two very
different messages are sent, the former of virtue, the latter of vice.

With corporal punishment, too, different approaches transmit
different messages. I’m not the first to point out that it should never
be administered in a spirit of anger, as this sends a message to the
effect of: I have more power and authority than you, so I can take out
my frustrations on you. If, however, the punishment is delivered in a
cool, sober fashion, the message is quite different. After all, the
child has to think (on some level), “Wow, my parents aren’t angry, so
they must be doing this for some other reason.” The message then is
simply: You’ve done something wrong, and this is the consequence.

And this brings to mind a common misconception; what is
relevant is the attitude serving as the impetus behind the punishment,
not the nature of the punishment. Why, any punishment, corporal or
otherwise, administered in a spirit of anger and frustration sends the
same message. After all, if governmental authorities persecuted you
merely because they despised you, would their actions somehow be
sanitized if they decided to imprison you instead of administering a
flogging? Abuse can take many forms, and so can justice.

Unfortunately, so too can false doctrine. Lust can lead to
sexual indiscretions, greed to theft, gluttony to over-eating, envy to
uncharitableness, sloth to irresponsibility, pride to repeated error,
and wrath can lead to violence. None of these faults nor any of their
corresponding manifestations have to be taught, as they’re painfully
common among men. No, with people believing blather such as “violence
has to be taught,” it seems as if the only common thing that needs to
be learned is common sense.